At the Washington Post Glenn Kessler reviews the claim, frequently asserted by the White House and the president’s supporters, that President Obama called the attack on the U. S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and subsequent murder of four Americans a terrorist act immediately. He finds that the Administration is, to be charitable, mistaken. It won’t make any difference.
Try as they might Republicans will not be able to transmogrify the sad affair into a major scandal and it’s not “because there’s no there there”. That’s irrelevant. Americans don’t care about it. There are any number of reasons they don’t care but IMO first and foremost is that Americans are, in general, uninterested in foreign affairs even when events overseas result in the deaths of Americans. There’s a sort of “what can you expect from the wogs?” reaction.
Move on, already. It’s not a winning issue.
I agree and disagree.
Your statement about people not being too interested in foreign affairs is probably true. This’s because people are more inclined to turn an ear, decrying or blessing what directly effects them and their loved ones. The rest becomes more of a disassociated blur.
However, IMO, that is not reason enough to ignore an issue — just because there is no audience for it. Government certainly has lots of intrinsic drama associated with it’s functions. But, only addressing those issues drawing in the most crowds is a superficial measurement of what merits attention and what should be dismissed.
From the testimony, given by those directly involved with the Benghazi event, it’s clear that a bad judgment call was made approving and/or waiving faulty, unsafe security conditions. These errors created an easily exploited vulnerability in that Benghazi consulate, resulting in mayhem and death — inaction being the only government lifeline. This was then followed by numerous rewrites of the facts, most likely done to smooth the way for the reelection of a seated president. That’s not only a course-of-action failure, but also a cover-up masked by lies. If you move on, without due process to whittle down all the layers of subterfuge from this incident, it will only serve to encourage and propagate similar tragedies in the future.
After all, everyone has heard excuses for government misconduct or bad policy-making being explained away by saying, “Well, the former administration did this!” Even now, the Bush Patriot Act, is being cited as the genesis for the just exposed AP phone records confiscation story. Of course, there is no mention that the current administration extended the Act in 2011, for another 4 years. So, whatever civil right’s intrusions that the dems so vehemently opposed after 911, are now ok in 2011-2016? If something was so wrong under one president, shouldn’t it have been seriously studied. and perhaps not been renewed under the next president? That’s exactly what some are calling for regarding Benghazi — “Don’t look at it any more. Just drop it!”
Also, just because a press blacks out a story does not invalidate it’s importance. Bernstein and Woodward had to obsessively pursue their investigation of the DNC botched burglary to finally bring attention to it’s tie-in with the WH. Even the Gosnell abortion clinic ran for years, unnoticed with no oversight. And, during the trial, the MSM refused to give it any coverage. Not until the waning days of the trial, though the tenacious efforts of reporters like Kirsten Powers, who was said to have “shamed the press” by a column she wrote condemning the media, did this story finally gain footing, and the man was convicted.
So, those are my reasons why pursuing wrongdoing should not be duly influenced either a yawning press or by people who just want it to go away.
The there that is there was already uncovered in the official investigation. No one cared about that as it showed bad judgment plus a lack of imagination. The GOP wants a political scandal with a cover up. The focus on what was said when is just political gamesmanship that will only interest one side that has, TBH, been looking for an excuse for impeachment since Obama was elected. A lot of hearings and what we have learned is that the State Department and the CIA were each sending notes back and forth trying to make the other look bad while covering their own mistakes. Not exactly a scandal. (Well, also throw in a big helping of right wing PC. You must use the word terrorist as often as possible.)
Steve
Steve,
Most of the impeachment talk has been from the left and a few talk show hosts, such as Huckebee. Impeachment is a stretch, as far as I’m concerned.
However, Steve, your points were simply a regurgitation of the MSM’s talking points — the same people who have covered Obama’s behind from the very beginning.
The new news were alleged statements being substantiated by people directly connected with the on-going attack in Benghazi. This definitely presents some there there, in looking into Benghazi. I also didn’t know that Hillary had called Hicks, @ 2AM, 9/12, receiving a first-hand account, which then calls into question and discredits the video tape theme she stuck to, days later, including her comments to distraught parents of those murdered.
I hadn’t heard about the 11-12 revisions. Those email exchanges, talking about talking points, were also new news to most people, as they had earlier been given to a committee not engaged in this investigation. This committee was instructed not to share them with others.
Also, Matt Olson, Counter Terrorism head, was not sent to the Hill by Obama, but was asked to come. His prepared statement held no reference to Benghazi being a terrorist attack, either. This was only revealed upon a direct question lobbed at him, by one of the questioners. And, afterwards, Catherine Herridge reported that Olson was criticized by the WH for that admission. The Benghazi affair then rose to another level of seriousness, as it was the first real admission by the government of this fact. Before that, Obama obfuscated and fudged all references to this being the work of terrorists — on Letterman, The View, 60 Minutes, the UN, a Mexican news interview, and so on. His Rose Garden reference to Terrorism was a reference to 9/11/01, but later gratuitiously inserted into the debate as something else, helped by Cindy Crowley erronously validating his assertion. Obama, also transformed the Olson testimony on the hill, at yesterday’s news conference, into an entirely different story too — much like what has happened to the initial report that was submitted by the CIA. Even Patraeus has stated those talking points were not helpful — in other words, BS.
Oh yes, it was also revealed by Hicks that the president of Libya was humiliated by the contradictions offered by the Obama administration to what the cause of the attack was — saying it was a video rather than an act of terrorism. This led to a lack of cooperation by the Libyan government, which Hicks felt directly held up their investigation, leading to where we are today in getting any justice — basically nowhere with no justice.
Yeah, I think it was good that the politicization was exposed, but I don’t see anymore there in terms of scandal. And if Robert Gates is calling one’s views “cartoonish,” then it’s time for the right wing to move on.
Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability – CBS News
Bengazhi is horrid. Why were we there to begin with? Anyway, the “dark horse” scandal is the HHS allegedly solicting private corporation funding for Obamacare from corps that will benefit massively from its implementation. It appears to be an “end around” of our legal system. Who knows. This so many scandal strategy may work as most people are too stupid or don’t care.
Andy
With all due respect, Gates is no longer in the loop. I feel the same about Dick Chaney and his comments, in that they are more opinion than really relevant to the event.
Also, calling for help, in the midst of an attack, has merit, as there is no rear view mirror saying how long the attack will be. Such armchair analysis, though, from people like Gates and other bureaucrats, have the benefit of retrospection. However, what is being discussed is what should have been done when the attack was first known and underway. And, it has long been America’s claim and moral duty that it would do it’s utmost to help those in distress. This was not done in Benghazi.